4.7 Article

Whole solid waste inorganic lightweight material: Preparation and effects of various parameters on its properties

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 411, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.134104

关键词

Solid waste materials; Chemical foaming; Aluminum powder; Experimental parameters; Hole wall structure; Absolute dry density

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study produced inorganic foam materials using waste materials through chemical foaming, offering a promising alternative to flammable conventional organic foam materials. The preparation process was optimized, and the optimal experimental parameters resulted in satisfactory porosity, compressive strength, and dry density.
Flammable conventional organic foam materials imply fire hazards to constructions and buildings. Given that the accumulated alkaline solid wastes, such as red mud (RM) and carbide slag (CS), seriously damage the ecology, their safe utilization in developing nonflammable inorganic foam building materials is very lucrative. This study produced whole solid waste inorganic foam materials through chemical foaming, with aluminum powder used as a foaming agent. This preparation process was optimized by studying the effects of aluminum powder content, water-binder ratio, and stirring water temperature(Water temperature used in the experiment) on the absolute dry density, compressive strength, porosity, pore morphology, and pore size distribution of the specimens. The increase in aluminum powder content and water-binder ratio lead to a decrease in density and compressive strength, while the rising stirring water temperature resulted in opposite trends in porosity and compressive strength. The optimal experimental parameters (aluminum powder content of 1 %, water-binder ratio of 0.7 wt %, and stirring water temperature of 40celcius) provide the foam specimen's porosity of 33.2 %, compressive strength of 0.41 MPa after 28 days, and a dry density below 0.5 g/cm3.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据